Nick Matzke posted Entry 2620 on October 3, 2006 06:02 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2614

Well, this is probably a slight to revolutionary minds everywhere, but Seed magazine has seen fit to include me in their “Revolutionary Minds” series that they are starting in the October issue which just hit the newsstands. See the NCSE writeup for more. Here is Seed‘s description:

Revolutionary Minds: Portraits of young, visionary iconoclasts who operate in a world in which cross-pollination and the synthesis of ideas are the norm.

Check out the introduction to the “Nine Revolutionary Minds” article:

Every generation has its salon, its emblematic gathering of emergent thinkers. The 20s saw the likes of Matisse, Pound, Hemingway gathered in Gertrude Stein’s Paris apartment. The 50s saw Paul Bowles’ “Tangerinos,” with giants Allen Ginsberg, Truamn Capote, and William Burroughs taking up resident in Tangiers. In the 60s there was Andy Warhol’s Factory, the studio where his iconic silk screens were produced and where Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, and so many others could be found on any given New York night.

OK, OK, just what the heck is a guy like me doing here? Well:

Nick Matzke will gladly give a quick tutorial about evolution and history of creationism – even if it means lecturing at 3 a.m. while strolling along the banks of the Susquehanna River in Harrisburg, PA. It was there, last November, that Matzke helped the plaintiff’s lawyers cream for their final corss-examination of intelligent design (ID) proponents.

This is, in fact, a true story.

Pepper-Hamilton lawyer Steve Harvey remembers it more vividly than I – those lawyers really know how to function on no sleep – but being unable to find a cab at 3 am, several times we had to hike a mile and a half up the river from downtown Harrisburg to the apartments we were staying at, in the middle of the night. Evidently I said something profound about creationism then but we have trouble remembering exactly what it was. Basically we were discussing how all the events you read about in the history books on creationism were converging precisely on us in the last weeks of the Kitzmiller case. When Robert Gentry (final creationist witness in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial) showed up in Harrsiburg in the last week of the trial, we pretty much decided that we should just accept the fact that we were reliving McLean.

With a background in biology, chemistry, and geography, 30-year old Matzke sharpened his expertise writing for The Panda’s Thumb, a leading evolution blog. There, he became an avid participant in online debates with proponents of ID – a hobby that transformed into a secret weapon for the legal team he later advised.

Note to PT writers and readers: this apparently means that PT is the 21st-century equivalent of Gertrude Stein’s Paris apartment.

He attributes part of the plaintiff’s edge to his careful study of ID tactics. “We knew that [we] could predict exactly what the other side was going to say in response to any argument,” he recalls.

Of course anyone very familiar with creationism knows this very well…but I was the lucky guy who got to be the conduit…

Matzke also assisted by searching archives and collecting evidence. In April 2005, after reading about the development of ID’s seminal text, Of Pandas and People, Matzke realized that early versions of the text might reveal its authors’ intentions and notified the legal team in what he calls his “Psychic Email about the Pandas drafts.” Sure enough, when five drafts of the text were subpoenaed and analyzed, they turned out to be the ID proponents’ smoking gun.

PT readers know the basic story of the drafts as it was unveiled in 2005 during the Kitzmiller case. And my contribution, which I admit makes me chuckle in astonishment every single day, has been recounted a few times. But because I don’t think this is on the web anywhere, I have posted a section of my essay on the Kitzmiller case that was published in NCSE’s special Dover issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education. (Note to everyone: NCSE members receive this journal in the mail as their membership, instead of having to wait for the whim of a blogger. Join NCSE!) Here is the relevant section:

The Story of the Drafts

Barbara Forrest was the expert who would have to make the connection between the ID movement and creationism. She had, of course, coauthored Creationism’s Trojan Horse, on the origins and history of the Discovery Institute, the “Wedge document“, and the leaders of the ID movement. However, the Discovery Institute only established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996. Of Pandas and People, which is the first book to use the terms “intelligent design” and “design proponents” systematically, and which presents all of the modern ID arguments, was published in 1989. The creationist origin of Pandas and the “intelligent design” phraseology was not covered in detail in previous works on the history of ID, so my job was to dig up everything we could possibly find on the origin of Pandas and “intelligent design”. The NCSE archives contain several files on Pandas and on the publisher of the book, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE).

Because Frank Sonleitner and John Thomas had done significant work analyzing the book and tracking FTE’s activities in the 1980s and 1990s (see http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21), I gathered advice and old files from both of them. I also rummaged through the relevant files in NCSE’s archives and looked up various books and articles published by the Pandas authors, working through NCSE’s collection of old creationist magazines and newspapers. Finally, I examined three recent books that give histories of the ID movement – Larry Witham’s By Design and Where Darwin Meets the Bible, and Thomas Woodward’s Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Although the role of Pandas in the ID movement is minimized in these sources, they nevertheless contained various useful tidbits from interviews with the “academic editor” of Pandas, Charles Thaxton, and other early players in the ID movement.

Examination of all of these sources together – apparently something that no one had taken the time and trouble to do before – revealed some interesting facts about the history of Pandas: (1) Thaxton and the books authors were working on Pandas for about a decade before it was actually published in 1989; (2) in early references to the Pandas project in the 1980s, Thaxton and FTE’s president Jon Buell described themselves and their work as “creationist” and about “creation” – not “intelligent design”; and (3) the label “intelligent design” was chosen for Pandas very late in the evolution of the book, almost as the last change made before publication. This all built a nice circumstantial case that ID developed from creationism, and this case is made in Barbara Forrest’s first expert report, filed on April 1, 2005.

On about April 8, NCSE’s then-archivist Jessica Moran came across another document in a file in the NCSE archives: a prospectus for a book entitled Biology and Origins, sent to a textbook publisher in 1987. Somehow this ended up in the files of the late Thomas Jukes, a prominent molecular biologist and longtime NCSE supporter. In 1995, Jukes sent the page to NCSE with the handwritten note “I found this in an old file, but it is certainly fascinating!” The prospectus document indicated that Biology and Origins existed in draft form in 1987, and furthermore had been sent to school districts for testing as well as to prospective publishers. The existence of unpublished drafts of Pandas should have been obvious from the evidence mentioned in the previous paragraph, and references to Biology and Origins were known, but we thought of it as just a working title for Pandas. The prospectus document made it clear that Biology and Origins was an actual draft that was widely reproduced and sent out to publishers and reviewers, and also explicitly indicated that the book would “give students the scientific rationale for creation from the study of biology.”

This discovery shed light on a rather important historical fact that had somehow been omitted from all previous histories of the origin of the “intelligent design” movement. It has always been obvious that ID arguments derived from creationist sources, but never in the wildest dreams of creationism watchers had it occurred to anyone that the phrase “intelligent design” had quite literally originated as a switch in terminology in an actual physical draft of an explicitly creationist textbook.

I summarized the situation, as I understood it at the time, to the legal team as follows, in a discussion of Dembski’s expert report:

Dembski doesn’t mention the “version 0” of Pandas, Biology and Origins, which is mentioned in some of the 1980s FTE fundraising letters and other material. I am reasonably sure that the word “creation” would be substituted for “design” or “intelligent design” at many points within that manuscript. This would prove our point in many ways. We have a couple written sources indicating that picking the words “intelligent design” was one of the very last things that Charles Thaxton did during the development of Pandas.

We don’t know:

(a) Whether any copies of Biology and Origins still exist, e.g. at FTE in Texas or in the files OF Thaxton, Davis or Kenyon;

(b) Whether Dembski has seen them (based on the expert report, Dembski either doesn’t know the prehistory of Pandas, or is leaving that out).

At the time, it was far from clear that creationist drafts of Pandas still existed. But Eric Rothschild knew what to do. He immediately issued a subpoena to the Foundation for Thought and Ethics for any documents relating to the origin and development of Biology and Origins and Of Pandas and People.

After a failed attempt to quash the subpoena, FTE coughed up the documents in early July. To our amazement, five major drafts were uncovered, and we were able to trace the switch in terminology from creationism to “intelligent design” to just after the Supreme Court’s Edwards v Aguillard decision in 1987. Barbara Forrest included all of this in a supplementary expert report and in her testimony at trial, and it became a key piece of Judge Jones’s opinion.

Although the Pandas drafts were obviously important in the Kitzmiller case, it is only slowly dawning on everyone just how significant they are. The drafts are nothing less than the smoking gun that proves exactly when and how “intelligent design” originated. This was probably the biggest discovery in creationism research since the finding that the Coso Artifact was actually a 1920s sparkplug (see RNCSE 2004 Mar/Apr; 24 [2]: 26-30). They prove that the cynical view of ID was exactly right: ID really is just creationism relabeled, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naively misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking.

(pp. 40-41 of: Matzke, N. (2006). “Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case.” Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26(1-2), 37-44.)

The now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony, which showed how the “creation” and “creationist” terminology was systematically and suddenly changed to “intelligent design” and “design proponent” terminology, are available online exhibits page of NCSE’s Kitzmiller v. Dover documents archive. They are free for nonprofit educational use as long as the source page is cited.

The equally famous “missing link” between creationism and “intelligent design”, “cdesign proponentsists“, was discovered by Barbara Forrest. Discussion of this discovery is found here and here.

Another note to readers: Ponder these facts: No one knew anything about these drafts. They were completely unmentioned in the literature on the ID movement. They were discovered only because of a conjunction of factors: (1) NCSE existed, (2) NCSE has kept archives on creation/evolution since the 1980s, (3) NCSE awhile back hired an archivist to organize these files, (4) NCSE was involved in the Kitzmiller case and was in close contact with the lawyers, (5) NCSE was able to give a staffer (me) free reign to work on the case, dig through the archives, and eventually realize the big picture. If any of these factors had been missing the drafts would have remained completely unknown and as far as the judge and the world were concerned, they would not have existed. All of these factors existed and came together only because of the existence of NCSE. Did I mention you should join NCSE?

Like I said before, I am still amazed at how this part of the Kitzmiller case worked out. I was tremendously lucky to be in the right place at the right time. But they say that chance favors the prepared mind, and I think it is safe to say that PT and its predecessors such as TalkOrigins and TalkDesign, and particularly the small group of people involved in these projects, had a lot to do with preparing me. You are all revolutionary minds!

[Added in edit: The full reference is: Molly Wetterschneider (2006). “Nick Matzke: Legal Beagle.” Seed: Science is Culture. 2(7), p. 62. November 2006. Part of “Revolutionary Minds” series in Seed magazine, 2(7), pp. 54-63. Molly gets kudos for listening to my Kitzmiller stories for far too long.]

[I also forgot to mention that two other regulars are in this issue of Seed: PZ Myers reviews Dawkins’ new book, and Chris Mooney has a piece on science and the November election – “Scientists of the World, Unite!“.]

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #137146

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 3, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

I was tremendously lucky to be in the right place at the right time.

no, most of us here at the ‘thumb recognized you made rather substantial and unique contributions; don’t sell yourself short.

It’s about time you got some props for that work, Nick.

congrats.

Comment #137148

Posted by Doc Bill on October 3, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Kitzmiller Klobbered Kintelligent Design.

The Discovery Institute is so desperate that it’s director Mark Chapman is inventing fictitious research programs for the equally fictitious Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, to persecute. And persecute them we will, until the beer runs out at which time we’ll rest for a while.

Yes, Nick, your work is recognized and should Delta Pi Gamma ever realize their fraternity car (red BMW M-6) we’ll give you a ride. We are generous to a fault.

We salute you, Nick. And, the Discovery Institute salutes you, too, because without you they wouldn’t be nothing!

Comment #137154

Posted by Forthekids on October 3, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

In regard to this comment:
“Although the Pandas drafts were obviously important in the Kitzmiller case, it is only slowly dawning on everyone just how significant they are. The drafts are nothing less than the smoking gun that proves exactly when and how “intelligent design” originated. This was probably the biggest discovery in creationism research since the finding that the Coso Artifact was actually a 1920s sparkplug (see RNCSE 2004 Mar/Apr; 24 [2]: 26-30). They prove that the cynical view of ID was exactly right: ID really is just creationism relabeled, and anyone who thought otherwise was either naively misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking.”

Evidently, not everyone thinks that the Kilzmiller case is as significant as you would like to believe. The distinguished University of Chicago Law Professor Albert Alschuler has a slightly different view:

“If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century…accepting the Bible as literal truth - the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court’s response - “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” - is uncivil, and illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already.”

According to Alschuler, Judge Jones’ believes “Dover is simply Scopes trial redux. The proponents of intelligent design are guilty by association, and today’s yahoos are merely yesterday’s reincarnated.” Alschuler also stated that “proponents of intelligent design deserve the same respect” as evolutionists in the evaluation of their arguments, something they did not get from Judge Jones. Their ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not on presumed illicit motives. As Alschuler put it, “[f]reedom from psychoanalysis is basic courtesy.”

[Albert Alschuler, The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part 1: Of Motive, Effect, and History, The faculty blog university of Chicago Law School, (-Dec. 21, 2005), last visited Jan. 21, 2006)http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/t…]

Comment #137155

Posted by Doc Bill on October 3, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

I’m sorry, FTK, did you have a point? It wasn’t clear.

Alschuler is wrong on so many points and his “opinion” has already been disected. Old news.

Reiterating the main thrust: intelligent design is creationism. intelligent design is dead.

And both points were demonstrated and proved by…wait for it…creationists! Thank you one and all.

Comment #137156

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 3, 2006 10:58 PM (e)

“If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century…accepting the Bible as literal truth - the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court’s response - “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” - is uncivil, and illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already.”

Of course, if Alschuler had actually read the rest of the testimony in the Kitmiller case, he wouldn’t have said something as dismissive and ignorant as what you quote him as saying.

to say that the entire case revolved around Pandas, as opposed to the tons of expert testimony provided (by both sides), and the lies and deceits perpetrated by the defendants in many instances, belies what actually constituted the bulk of the trial itself, and the basis for Jones’ decision.

If you doubt that, I highly suggest you read the trial transcipt and decision for yourself.

It’s not hard to find.

Comment #137161

Posted by Anton Mates on October 3, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

The court’s response - “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” - is uncivil, and illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse.

Are you seriously arguing that courts can’t decide people are lying, because it would be impolite?

What exactly are trials for, then?

Comment #137173

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on October 4, 2006 1:20 AM (e)

Yeah, Alschuler is just one of several people who is in total denial of what happened at the trial.

1. ID wasn’t dismissed summarily by association with creationists, instead the top ID guys came and spent days making their best scientific case. The only problem was it was destroyed by the plaintiffs’ experts and on cross. The judge found that the ID arguments, on their merits, just didn’t hold up. Second-guessing the judge without even bothering to rebut the record of sworn testimony the judge based his decision on is basically completely naive.

2. But showing that ID isn’t science only destroys the Defense case. It doesn’t prove the plaintiffs positive case, which was that ID is a specific religious view. The Pandas drafts helped accomplish that, and made it crystal clear that ID is just one big attempt to scoot creationism around the 1987 Edwards decision. Once a judge sees the origin of ID, his job is easy, because the Supreme Court already made the decision for him and he just has to follow precedent.

(These points apply mostly to the “broad implications” part of the case, of course the events in Dover were the other half of the case and completely devastating on their own.)

Comment #137174

Posted by steve s on October 4, 2006 1:37 AM (e)

1) What Rothschild did to Behe on the stand, was the legal equivalent of the kung-fu scene where the guy’s punch goes through the opponent’s stomach and out his back.

2) Anybody know if Denzel has signed on to play Nick yet?

Comment #137213

Posted by improvius on October 4, 2006 7:43 AM (e)

I think you meant “cram” instead of “cream”.

Comment #137215

Posted by Forthekids on October 4, 2006 8:03 AM (e)

Nick,

You wrote:
“It doesn’t prove the plaintiffs positive case, which was that ID is a specific religious view.”

I realize that there will be no convincing anyone here that ID is anything other than a Christian fundamentalist attempt to push religion into the public schools.

But, there are those of us who are completely opposed to the notion of injecting religious beliefs into the public schools, yet we recognize that evolutionary mechanisms do not support human origins and science must consider other options.

The textbook that you are convinced is the smoking gun that will do away with ID is just another example that you are incorrect in asserting that religion is being inserted into the science class.

That textbook does not teach religion, it teaches scientific concepts. Neither does it support any particular religious group. And, no one has ever demanded that that particular textbook should be used to teach students the concepts of ID. If that particular book is repulsive to you, consider another source.

To reject ID because ~you~ tend to think that supporters of ID are creationists or fundamental Christians is not a valid reason for rejection. You should be focusing entirely upon the theory itself, not upon religious various beliefs of those who support it.

We certainly wouldn’t reject Dawkins work due to his atheistic viewpoint, and we should consider the theory of ID with an open mind and without bias against the faith beliefs of those who have formulated the theory.

Comment #137217

Posted by Eric Rothschild on October 4, 2006 8:29 AM (e)

Along with accepting thanks for the “kung fu” compliment, I want to add my congratulations to Nick for the Seed article, and to second his plea for support and recognition of NCSE. While the DI and Thomas More were squabbling, we had the best support possible from NCSE staffers and its extended community, as well as fabulous testifying experts.

Comment #137218

Posted by Darth Robo on October 4, 2006 8:43 AM (e)

And what specifically is scientific about Of Pandas And People? The glue that holds the pages together, maybe.

Forthekids said:

“You should be focusing entirely upon the theory itself, not upon religious various beliefs of those who support it.”

They did that also and systematically slaughtered the so called ‘science’ of ID.

“We certainly wouldn’t reject Dawkins work due to his atheistic viewpoint”

“We certainly wouldn’t reject Dawkins work due to his atheistic viewpoint”

1) Because , Dawkins beliefs aside, his science is good.

2) Atheism is not religious and has no bearing on science.

You seem to be implying that the reason ID was rejected by science because they don’t like religious people.

“But, there are those of us who are completely opposed to the notion of injecting religious beliefs into the public schools, yet we recognize that evolutionary mechanisms do not support human origins and science must consider other options.”

No, you FAIL to recognize that evolutionary mechanisms are just fine for explaining how humans along with other animals are descended from a common ancestor. You also fail to realize that the ‘other options’ you would consider offer no alternative other than a supernatural cause for life to occur. Supernatural ain’t scientific.

Comment #137220

Posted by demallien on October 4, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

I just know I’m going to regret asking this, but honestly, FTK, how do you justify this:

The textbook that you are convinced is the smoking gun that will do away with ID is just another example that you are incorrect in asserting that religion is being inserted into the science class.

I mean, they did a search and replace on “creationism”, substituting it with “Intelligent Design”. Considering that the textbook in question has Intelligent Design as its main theme, it is the exact equivalent of saying Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing. How can you possibly argue otherwise????

Comment #137221

Posted by Scott Hatfield on October 4, 2006 9:14 AM (e)

Nick:

Congratulations on some well-deserved publicity focusing on the laudable work that you and NCSE have and are continuing to do on behalf of science education in this country.

As a member of NCSE, let me take this moment to personally applaud you. Hurrah!
….Scott

Comment #137227

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 4, 2006 9:27 AM (e)

Um, FTK, are you forgetting about the Wedge Document, wherein the DI basically stated they were aiming to institute Christianity as the basis for all science, culture and law? Was the DI lying or are they fundamentalist, dominionist nutjobs? Neither is really going to be a good answer.

Comment #137233

Posted by Forthekids on October 4, 2006 10:18 AM (e)

Question:

Is the DI planning to ~force~ their views on the nation? Or, rather are they using persuasion through open discussion in order to relay their views on the subjects at hand?

From the wedge:
“Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

There is a difference between persuasion and coercion.

I attended a lecture by Os Guinness last night at KU and I wish everyone in this debate took what he had to say at heart. His message was clear and extremely important.

My review of his lecture can be found here:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/10/os…

Comment #137234

Posted by k.e. on October 4, 2006 10:24 AM (e)

Holy Fork…FTK did you really say?

The textbook that you are convinced is the smoking gun that will do away with ID is just another example that you are incorrect in asserting that religion is being inserted into the science class.

Just for the record FTK OPAP was proved in court to be a work promoting ‘creationism’ despite all the half arsed attempts to cover that up, every single person both before the case and in court understood that…you DO know that creationism is a religious world view don’t you? You seem to have missed the whole point. Why on earth would the self confessed creationists (or yourself) who wanted that book read by students taking a biology class, even promote it if that were not the case?

Just suppose what would happen if one of Dawkins’ books were were promoted by a human secularist school board as an alternative view to the ‘god idea’ be compulsorily announced before a prayer group meeting. I know …..it’s a ridiculous idea, you’ve almost got the whole thing sewn up, except for that niggling final thorn… the ToE. Boo hoo hoo.

FTK

That textbook does not teach religion, it teaches scientific concepts.

Total BS and you know it. It posits creationism which has no evidence as a replacement for a scientific theory which does, by using the same old discredited creationist talking points; which essentially disparage the ToE…if you want to know why, you could read the judgment.

FTK

Neither does it support any particular religious group.

ooops ……you didn’t mean to say that did you?
Perhaps you could give us a list of the ones it doesn’t support.

FTK

And, no one has ever demanded that that particular textbook should be used to teach students the concepts of ID.

ah…then why was there a court case?

Oh the concepts of ID?….please refresh my memory is that where one sits in a witness stand in a court and in from of the whole world ..as Behe did…and says “…I thought… wouldn’t it be wonderful if I could….”
cue the greatest interruption in history “read the mind of god?” …..Thank You Eric Rothschild

FTK

If that particular book is repulsive to you, consider another source.

Why don’t you? It might give Nick a head start, I personally would absolutely love to see a repeat performance, except next time with William A. Dembski, the so called ‘intellectual dear leader’ of ID, in the hot seat.

The first question I would ask him would be
“Hey Bill, did you actually say that ID is just the Gospel of John restated in the scientific idiom?”

The Hero of the ID movement has left a snail trail so obvious his diary will be full on the day he is invited as an ‘expert’ witness.

Comment #137237

Posted by Corkscrew on October 4, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

That textbook does not teach religion, it teaches scientific concepts. Neither does it support any particular religious group. And, no one has ever demanded that that particular textbook should be used to teach students the concepts of ID. If that particular book is repulsive to you, consider another source.

A) That textbook teaches Intelligent Design. By the definitions used in successive versions of the book, Intelligent Design is synonymous with creationism. Creationism was ruled to be an unscientific and religious concept, most recently in Edwards v. Aguillard. If you believe that creationism is a scientific concept, your quibble is with Edwards v. Aguillard, not Kitzmiller v. Dover. (Oh, and also with almost the entire scientific community, who think it’s useless rubbish)

B) The whole basis of the lawsuit was that students were being directed to that book by government officials. This directly resulted in heartbreaking situations like plaintiff Julie Smith’s daughter telling her “Well, Mom, evolution is a lie, what kind of Christian are you, anyway?”

Comment #137244

Posted by k.e. on October 4, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

FTK

Question:

Is the DI planning to ~force~ their views on the nation? Or, rather are they using persuasion through open discussion in order to relay their views on the subjects at hand?

From the wedge:
“Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

There is a difference between persuasion and coercion.

FTK I suggest you write to the DI and get them to change that to

“Without solid scholarship, research or argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

Since they have failed the “solid scholarship, research” test for the truth of that statement…

then your statement (There is a difference between persuasion and indoctrination) will be true instead of false…and BTW cutting and pasting to cover up an inconvenient fact does not constitute “solid scholarship AND research”.

Comment #137249

Posted by Raging Bee on October 4, 2006 11:01 AM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

But, there are those of us who are completely opposed to the notion of injecting religious beliefs into the public schools, yet we recognize that evolutionary mechanisms do not support human origins and science must consider other options.

So where’s the disciplined research, peer-reviewed papers, and/or other corroborated observation to prove this?

To reject ID because ~you~ tend to think that supporters of ID are creationists or fundamental Christians is not a valid reason for rejection.

It is if there’s plenty of documented evidence to prove that what we “think” is actually true. (Care to explain the significance of the phrase “cdesign proponentsists?”)

We certainly wouldn’t reject Dawkins work due to his atheistic viewpoint, and we should consider the theory of ID with an open mind and without bias against the faith beliefs of those who have formulated the theory.

That’s exactly what the Dover trial did. Guess what – ID failed.

Show us an actual theory (as opposed to objections and questions that have been answered years ago), and we’ll consider it. No theory, nothing to consider. (And yes, many in your camp do indeed reject Dawkins because of his atheistic viewpoint, and, worse yet, deliberately pretend that ALL scientists are as atheistic as Dawkins.)

If you want to be taken seriously here, you can at least try to answer this question: how does ID “theory” determine the age of the Earth? And what, exactly, does ID “theory” say the age of the Earth is?

Comment #137250

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 4, 2006 11:02 AM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

Question:

Is the DI planning to ~force~ their views on the nation? Or, rather are they using persuasion through open discussion in order to relay their views on the subjects at hand?

Does it matter? Hitler was elected by a nation pursuaded that he made good sense. Bad is bad.

Besides, isn’t spreading lies coercion? They’ve certainly tried coercing schools into inflicting untruths on students.

Forthekids wrote:

From the wedge:
“Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

And since they don’t have solid scholarship, research or argument, they are an attempt to indoctrinate rather than persuade, aren’t they?

Forthekids wrote:

There is a difference between persuasion and coercion.

Yes, and the DI is coercive.

Keep in mind, Abrahamson has stated, STATED mind you, that he wants to destroy the constitution and replace it with theocracy and old testament rule. The old testament is pretty big on killing people who don’t agree with aspects of the old testament. Isn’t killing people coercion?

Comment #137251

Posted by Raging Bee on October 4, 2006 11:07 AM (e)

There is a difference between persuasion and indoctrination.

That’s right: persuasion is when you argue your case honestly among adults of equal or superior competence to yours; and indoctrination is when you try to foist off a bunch of carefully-selected facts, bogus logic, word-salad and outright lies on a captive audience of minors. Guess which activity the ID crowd spend most of their time, money and energy on?

When you’re finished parroting lies “for the kids,” you might want to see if you have something to offer “for the grownups.”

Comment #137256

Posted by jazzmitch on October 4, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

FTK to quote from your blog link:
“But, he is quick to remind us that when we are talking with people of various faiths, we should be focusing on the matter at hand and the common good. We should not be debating who’s faith beliefs are correct or how they affect the subject at hand. Neither should we be forcing our religious beliefs on others.”

- a statement on it’s own that I agree with (i.e in science class focus on science not faith, which is irrelivant)

I don’t want to belabor this point, but I don’t think it can be overemphasized. the “matter at hand” is the content of public school SCIENCE curricula. Teachers WILL BE talking with people of various faiths and the benefit to the common good would be to focus on what is relevant, i.e. SCIENCE. ID and Creationism ARE religous apologetics and NOT SCIENCE therefore discussing ID/creationism as if it was science is an irrelevant waste of time/resources at best and engaging in lying/deciet (EVIL) at worst. What part of this isn’t clear?

In the 14-20 years of schooling that Americans have the privelige to participate in, there are ample oppertunities to civilly discuss matters of faith and philosophy. 9th grade biology is NOT one of them

Comment #137257

Posted by vhutchison on October 4, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Nick: Congratulations on a well-deserved honor. Having read the NCSE Reports and all of the material from the Dover trial, etc., I know that your contributions were very important in the final outcome. Naysayers,such as FTK, can scream all they wish, but it is already clear that the Kitzmiller opinion has influenced local school boards to avoid creationist attempts and the importance of the precedent set by Judge Jones WILL be very influential in any future court cases.

Everyone interested in keeping ‘science only in the science classroom’ should join and support NCSE!

Comment #137258

Posted by vhutchison on October 4, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

Nick: Congratulations on a well-deserved honor. Having read the NCSE Reports and all of the material from the Dover trial, etc., I know that your contributions were very important in the final outcome. Naysayers,such as FTK, can scream all they wish, but it is already clear that the Kitzmiller opinion has influenced local school boards to avoid creationist attempts and the importance of the precedent set by Judge Jones WILL be very influential in any future court cases.

Everyone interested in keeping ‘science only in the science classroom’ should join and support NCSE!

Comment #137259

Posted by k.e. on October 4, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

ooops Michael wrong Son of Abraham there did you mean

Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson Jr ?

more
here

Comment #137262

Posted by gwangung on October 4, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

I realize that there will be no convincing anyone here that ID is anything other than a Christian fundamentalist attempt to push religion into the public schools.

Given that many, many ID proponents SAY EXACTLY THAT….why shouldn’t we believe it?

Really, you can put words together coherently. You can do much better with your arguments.

Comment #137271

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 4, 2006 12:19 PM (e)

k.e. wrote:

ooops Michael wrong Son of Abraham there did you mean

Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson Jr ?

Yes. That’s what I said. This intelligent designed software clearly messed up what I wrote. That’s clearly the only explanation for why it got posted incorectly. *whistles innocently*

But your link doesn’t really say much about Ahmanson himself. The wikipedia article does a better job. I love how he says he hasn’t called for the stoning of homosexuals, but thinks people who did so wouldn’t be immoral for it.

Comment #137288

Posted by Sounder on October 4, 2006 1:15 PM (e)

Just finished reading your summary of Os Guinness’ lecture. I can’t help but notice that Os endorses religious expression in public (i.e., government, and schools by extension) forums. Do you agree with this view?

Also…

He believes that faith and reason are part of the same thing, and should intermingle. Faith is a part of who we are and it affects how we view the world. He believes that we should not keep our faith hidden in the private sector while only allowing a secularist point of view in the public square.

Is it your interpretation of his speech that he believes the “religious” views of “secularists” are being promoted in public schools? And do you agree with his opinion?

Also, seeing you post a lecture on religiosity immediately after posts declaring the non-religiousness of the ID movement begs the question: How is ID a-religious if your arguments for teaching it include denigrating “extreme secularists” who “[wrongly] put forth that there should be a strict barrier between church and state”?

Comment #137290

Posted by GuyeFaux on October 4, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

Just finished reading your summary of Os Guinness’ lecture.

I somehow doubt that FTK will give you that analogous courtesy and actually respond honestly to your questions.

Comment #137293

Posted by SteveC on October 4, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

“… Matzke helped the plaintiff’s lawyers cream for their final corss-examination of intelligent design (ID) proponents.”

Cream?

Comment #137294

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on October 4, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

We have been graced by the presence of Eric Rothschild, whom, according to legend, received an email marriage proposal from an internet evolution fan after the Behe cross.

Comment #137299

Posted by David B. Benson on October 4, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

Nick — Thank you for all your efforts in defending science and congradulations on receiving some recognition of this work. Keep it up!

Comment #137300

Posted by Forthekids on October 4, 2006 3:29 PM (e)

Sounder writes:
“Just finished reading your summary of Os Guinness’ lecture. I can’t help but notice that Os endorses religious expression in public (i.e., government, and schools by extension) forums. Do you agree with this view?”

I don’t believe he “endorses” religious expression in a way that would coerce others to have to be involved in a particular religious belief system (for instance in schools). What he was saying is that our faith beliefs affect our worldview and philosophical positions. And, yes I agree that our faith plays a vital part in our lives and it is not helpful to our well being to believe one thing, but become complacent in the public sector so as not to appear “intolerant” of other belief systems. That is not to say that we shove our beliefs down the throats of others, but we should carry on peaceful dialogue regarding our position on various issues.

you write:
“Also…
He believes that faith and reason are part of the same thing, and should intermingle. Faith is a part of who we are and it affects how we view the world. He believes that we should not keep our faith hidden in the private sector while only allowing a secularist point of view in the public square.

Is it your interpretation of his speech that he believes the “religious” views of “secularists” are being promoted in public schools? And do you agree with his opinion?”

Os mentioned that he does view secularism as a form of religious thought. And, he seemed to view two extremes in America as I mentioned in my blog. His concern is that both sides seems to be fighting for what they fear the most from the opposition. Control.

I do not believe that secularists are purposely trying to promote their views in the public schools. My fear is that both fundamentalists and secularists are non-wittingly causing the nation a lot of turmoil because of their fear of each other. It seems to me we should be embracing our differences and learning ways in which to compromise on various issues.

you wrote:
“Also, seeing you post a lecture on religiosity immediately after posts declaring the non-religiousness of the ID movement begs the question: How is ID a-religious if your arguments for teaching it include denigrating “extreme secularists” who “[wrongly] put forth that there should be a strict barrier between church and state”?”

My position on ID has always been that it certainly has ~religious implications~, but the theory in and of itself is a-religious. I strongly support the separation of church and state, but I do worry that if the barrier between them becomes too strong, we will see many more problems in the future.

I appreciate your tone, and I’m struggling to try to word this correctly in order to get my point across so I hope it’s making sense in some way.

Comment #137301

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 4, 2006 4:02 PM (e)

I realize that there will be no convincing anyone here that ID is anything other than a Christian fundamentalist attempt to push religion into the public schools.

wrong. it would be extremely easy to convince most of us here. All you have to do is actual research using an actual ID hypothesis, and publish the results.

we’ve been asking for the ID “side” to do this for years now.

Put up or STFU.

But, there are those of us who are completely opposed to the notion of injecting religious beliefs into the public schools, yet we recognize that evolutionary mechanisms do not support human origins and science must consider other options.

I have no doubts there are a handful with such notions. There are a handful of outliers in any dataset. The current evidence does not support the position that yours is the majaority viewpoint of the ID movement, however.

The textbook that you are convinced is the smoking gun that will do away with ID is just another example that you are incorrect in asserting that religion is being inserted into the science class.

non sequitor. Have you even READ the book? it should not be included in ANY curricular program, simply because of the liberal falsehoods found within. The issue you keep seeming to miss is where those falsehoods originated from to begin with, and the paper trail is quite clear to anyone who actually does posess a modicum of critical thinking ability.

That textbook does not teach religion,

It does, unless you are blind.

..it teaches scientific concepts.

LOL. like?

Neither does it support any particular religious group. And, no one has ever demanded that that particular textbook should be used to teach students the concepts of ID.

incorrect. you don’t know the full history of this book, do you?

If that particular book is repulsive to you, consider another source.

like?

To reject ID because ~you~ tend to think that supporters of ID are creationists or fundamental Christians is not a valid reason for rejection. You should be focusing entirely upon the theory itself, not upon religious various beliefs of those who support it.

and, as has been stated MANY times, the rejection of ID comes from it’s vacuity, not it’s religious base. the objection to teaching ID in public schools comes from BOTH it’s vacuity AND it’s obvious religious roots, which is the basis for ALL attempts to teach it in a public school that have been promoted by any public school district so far.

do name ONE district that has proposed teaching ID where it wasn’t blatantly obvious from the proponent’s OWN STATEMENTS ON RECORD that their promotion wasn’t inherently for religious reasons (namely, evangelical xianity).

good luck.

We certainly wouldn’t reject Dawkins work due to his atheistic viewpoint,

that’s just it. Dawkin’s HAS produced a significant body of work that IS scientific, and therefore can actually be evaluated by the scientific community.

Ken Miller has produced a significant body of work contributing to the scientific community as well.

we don’t reject either because of their beliefs.

It really is just that simple.

do science, and be accepted within the scientific community. whine and complain and claim victimhood and incredulity, and you get what you ask for.

do you understand now? or will you continue to misrepresent what science is, and claim false victimhood?

Comment #137302

Posted by Coin on October 4, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

I don’t believe he “endorses” religious expression in a way that would coerce others to have to be involved in a particular religious belief system

Okay, so that’s what you believe. What interests me more is, what do the courts believe?

Comment #137304

Posted by Darth Robo on October 4, 2006 4:13 PM (e)

FTK said:

“My position on ID has always been that it certainly has ~religious implications~, but the theory in and of itself is a-religious.”

I’m afraid you’re still not listening. The so called ‘theory’ of ID has been debunked by the scientific community, not for its religious implications, but because it simply holds no scientific weight. Keep in mind that many scientists who hold this view are themselves also religious.

Your friend said:

“He believes that we should not keep our faith hidden in the private sector while only allowing a secularist point of view in the public square.”

No-one is asking anyone to hide their faith. You can still teach religion anywhere you like that does not have direct government endorsement. You can preach in your home, in private schools, go to church, build more churches (as long as you have a building permit), hire a hall, make TV shows, whatever. Hell, you can walk the streets and shout “Praise the Lord!”. All science asks is that religion is kept out of the science class because it teaches NON-SCIENCE.

Comment #137308

Posted by tomsuly on October 4, 2006 5:05 PM (e)

Oh Noooo!!! It’s FTK!!(Think of Mr. Bill when you read that line). I’m not too sure if the people here at Panda’s Thumb are familiar with FTK but before this thread gets too long, I thought I had better chime in and save all of you from getting a headache because after an hour of debating with her you will be smacking your head against your monitor, laptop, living room wall, etc.

For the last year I have been lurking here and at the Kansas Citizens for Science website, which is also where FTK used to post a lot but for some reason quit a month or so ago but lately has been showing up from time to time. Anyway, in my opinion FTK is the female equivalent to Larry Faraman. You can show her where her arguments are wrong but nothing gets through. It’s like arguing with a brickwall.

If you want to see what she is like, here is a link http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_t… to a thread at the KCFS site in which FTK was arguing for theories put for by Walt Brown (the discussion is a bit long, sorry about that). If you have the time, you can look at some of the other threads to really get an idea of what see is like.

Enjoy your day everyone.

Comment #137310

Posted by Darth Robo on October 4, 2006 5:14 PM (e)

Wow, Walt Brown. I’ve read some of that stuff. God he’s funny!

Comment #137311

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

Evidently, not everyone thinks that the Kilzmiller case is as significant as you would like to believe. The distinguished University of Chicago Law Professor Albert Alschuler has a slightly different view:

So sorry for the esteemed law professor, but alas for him, his opinion doesn’t count. The judge’s does.

My standard response to all the crybaby IDers who want to whine about the Dover decision:

Sorry that you don’t like the judge’s ruling. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don’t, then we’ll sue the crap out of you. (shrug)

Comment #137312

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 4, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

Walt Brown says comets are created from water ejecta after the “flud”??

ROFLMAO!

how do people come up with these nutty ideas?

NOW I understand why Larry Legion-be-thy-name Farfromsane originally posted his “meteor denial” (along with all his other “denials”).

Comment #137313

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

I realize that there will be no convincing anyone here that ID is anything other than a Christian fundamentalist attempt to push religion into the public schools.

Well after all, the Discovery Institue seems to think so. In their Wedge Document, they write:

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Please feel entirely free to explain to us how this does NOT mean that ID is an attempt to push fundamentalist Christian apologetics not only into schools, but into ALL “religious, cultural, moral and politicla life” ……

Comment #137314

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 4, 2006 5:47 PM (e)

As long as you’re (deservedly) going to be famous, you might as well start working on your “packaging,” for when you go into franchise mode:

Nick, meeting with lawyers at 3 a.m.
==> Nick at Night?

Nick, in the PT equivalent of a Parisian salon
==> A Nick is a Nick is a Nick?

Answers to crossword clues about Nick, the super sleuth
==> Nick’s dog: Asta; Nick’s wife: Nora?

Comment #137315

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 5:48 PM (e)

To reject ID because ~you~ tend to think that supporters of ID are creationists or fundamental Christians is not a valid reason for rejection.

Hmmmm … from the Wedge Document:

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

If, as you assert, ID is not creationism and has utterly completely totally no interest in creationism whatsoever, then, uh, would you mind explaining to me, please (1) what this “traditional doctrine of creation” is that ID wants to defend, and (2) why it wants to defend it …. ?

Comment #137316

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 4, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

As long as you’re (deservedly) going to be famous, you might as well start working on your “packaging,” for when you go into franchise mode:

Nick, meeting with lawyers at 3 a.m.
==> Nick at Night?

Nick, in the PT equivalent of a Parisian salon
==> A Nick is a Nick is a Nick?

Answers to crossword clues about Nick, the super sleuth
==> Nick’s dog: Asta; Nick’s wife: Nora?

Comment #137317

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 5:52 PM (e)

science must consider other options.

For instance …. ?

For almost ten years now I’ve been begging, BEGGING, the IDers to please please pretty please with sugar on it show me your scientific theory of ID and tell me how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, the only “responses” I ever got were various versions of (1) “Jesus saves!!!!”, or (2) “I don’t have to tell you.”

Which do you want to give me? Or will you utterly shock me by actually doing what no IDer ever has in human history — produce a testable scientific theory of design and tell us how to test it using the scientific method?

Comment #137318

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

I don’t believe he “endorses” religious expression in a way that would coerce others to have to be involved in a particular religious belief system

So what? In case you haven’t noticed, it’s illegal to teach religious opinions in science class. Period. Coerced or not.

Sorry if you dont like that. (shrug)

You and your fundie pals better get busy repealing the First Amendment if you want any chance of winning.

Have fun.

Comment #137319

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 4, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Thank you, Degas, once again–heh heh–for the multiple post.

Thank you, Degas, once again–heh heh–for the multiple post.

Comment #137320

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

You can show her where her arguments are wrong but nothing gets through. It’s like arguing with a brickwall.

Well, the bottom line, of course, is that it simply does not matter what she, or any other IDer, thinks. They had their day in court. They got to present all the evidence they wanted. They got to cross-examine all the evilutionists to their holy little heart’s content. They shot their entire load —- and they lost.

Game over.

They can weep and whine all they want. Makes no difference ‘t’all. ID is illegal to teach, and all their bitching and moaning won’t change that. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. (shrug)

If the IDers want to go to court again and make all their arguments all over again, I strongly encourage them to do so. Please do it. For me. Pretty please. In as many courtrooms as you possibly can. After all, creationist/IDers have the rather unique distinction of losing every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one. Without exception. Mostly because they, uh, don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

So please, by all means, stop wasting your time arguing here with *us*, get off your holy little ass, and go start some more court cases. Get out there and *show us all that you’re right !!!!!!!!!*

I *love* the smell of fundies getting fried in court. Again. And again. And again. And again.

Comment #137321

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Walt Brown

So much for that whole “ID isn’t creationism” thingie, huh.

But then, Walt Brown was a washed up old has-been twenty years ago. (shrug)

Comment #137322

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 4, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

If you want to see what she is like,

A female fundie …. . ?

HEY! Why aren’t you in the kitchen?

And why are you wearing shoes?

Quit talking with us menfolk, dearie, and go breed some babies for the Reich.

Comment #137337

Posted by stevaroni on October 4, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

It seems to me we should be embracing our differences and learning ways in which to compromise on various issues.

But you’re missing the point, this isn’t the strategy in Iraq we’re talking about or whether to allow abortion or not.

Those are subjects where people with different opinions can reach a reasonable compromise because there is no absolute fact involved. There is just the opinion of many different people, and it can reasonably differ.

The physical laws of nature are different. Two plus two equals four. It does not equal five, or three or pi.

An electron has a certain mass whether we like it or not.

There is no liberal point of view or conservative point of view to the speed of light, there is just a number.

This is the realm of science. The laws of nature just are, and you can’t alter them by political means, no matter how emotionally inconvient that happens to be for you.

I’m an engineer. Trust me, I know a lot about inconvienent laws of nature.

Can’t change a damned thing. All you can do is go measure it.

Now, one of two things happen out there in the world. Either we are evolved from a common ancestor or we are not.

You can’t negotiate yourself out of that dichotomy no matter how many laws you pass, or school boards you intimidate, and to claim you can is just lying. All you can do is go out and try to dig up some physical evidence and find out if your opinion is correct.

And so far, ID has failed completely in that regard.

Sorry.

Comment #137349

Posted by Sounder on October 4, 2006 7:31 PM (e)

Interesting.

I do not believe that secularists are purposely trying to promote their views in the public schools.

Unwittingly, then? What exactly are “secularists” pushing in schools that qualify as “religious views”?

Comment #137352

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 4, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

Well, I guess we’re too down with reason and all like that to have silly things like “e-props.”

But that, stevaroni, was very well said. Unflichingly accurate, but entirely civil.

Comment #137436

Posted by Peter on October 5, 2006 7:34 AM (e)

Nick,
I’d like to say congrats to you in a big way. During the Dover trial I was pleased to have made your acquaintance on the last day outside of the courtroom when you were noticeably…how do you say…tickled by how thoroughly Steve Harvey had just trashed Scott Minnich and Eric Rothschild had just slamdunked the case in his closing argument.
You deserve this award and the NCSE (which I joined last year as a non-scientist) is well-served to have you there.
Three cheers.

—-

FTK,
While I (probably we) can appreciate the degree to which you appear to be a tolerant and understanding person, science is a marvelously intolerant endeavor. It is unfair in that it can’t accept overt falsehood into its realm. Pandas is an unadulterated piece of anti-scientific evangelical nonsense and should and will be treated as such by any thoughtful scrupulous scientist or scientifically-minded layperson.
Drop it.

Comment #137454

Posted by Raging Bee on October 5, 2006 9:07 AM (e)

My fear is that both fundamentalists and secularists are non-wittingly causing the nation a lot of turmoil because of their fear of each other. It seems to me we should be embracing our differences and learning ways in which to compromise on various issues.

Where have you been for the last 219 years, FTK? We already have such a compromise – it’s called the “First Amendment.” The deal is: religious education/indoctrination is done by religious institutions, at the (voluntary) expense of their own parishoners; and the government doesn’t get involved. You got a problem with that?

PS: your pipedream of fundamentalists “embracing our differences” was absolutely hilarious. When was the last time fundamentalists even tolerated differences, let alone “embraced” them?

And don’t pretend that “secularists” and fundies are equally at fault for the “turmoil” we’re seeing now. The turmoil is entirely the fault of religious bigots trying to demonize, marginalize, and suppress EVERYONE not like themselves, in violation of our country’s most basic values.

Comment #137460

Posted by k.e. on October 5, 2006 9:21 AM (e)

Nick ((Matzke)) wrote:

We have been graced by the presence of Eric Rothschild, whom, according to legend, received an email marriage proposal from an internet evolution fan after the Behe cross.

Dang how did that get out? …snicker….Anyway my wife wouldn’t divorce me.

Comment #137465

Posted by bggeek on October 5, 2006 9:41 AM (e)

You and your fundie pals better get busy repealing the First Amendment if you want any chance of winning.

They’re workin’ on it (sigh)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art…

Comment #137472

Posted by stevaroni on October 5, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Stevepinhead said…
Well, I guess we’re too down with reason and all like that to have silly things like “e-props.”

Yeah, My bad.

I’ve been spending 12 hour days chained to a computer coding assembly language (which is not a lifestyle I advise, BTW) and I pop over here for a break occasionally while waiting for a test run.

I tend to start out pretty polite in the morning, but by the time evening rolls around, my tolerance for IDiots, especially that variety that will stand with you in the middle of a field and argue that the sky is not blue and the grass is not green, is greatly diminished.

I’ll try to be more e-civil in the future.

Comment #137478

Posted by Forthekids on October 5, 2006 11:05 AM (e)

Regarding this statement:
“And don’t pretend that “secularists” and fundies are equally at fault for the “turmoil” we’re seeing now. The turmoil is entirely the fault of religious bigots trying to demonize, marginalize, and suppress EVERYONE not like themselves, in violation of our country’s most basic values.”

I’m just curious whether any of you think you are going to win this battle you’ve set up for yourselves by raging against “fundies” at each and every opportunity given you.

I’m sure I classify as a “fundie” merely because I am a Christian, but I sometimes disagree with the way the “religious right” conduct themselves.

If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.

In others words, give us a reason to respect your position on scientific matters as well as religious or non-religious ideals.

If you feel there is no chance of convincing them and all that is left is to rage against the machine, I don’t think your rages are going to be of benefit in this debate.

In fact, it will probably do your case considerable damage in the end because the public will no doubt view your rants as a form of intolerance.

Just an thought.

Comment #137479

Posted by k.e. on October 5, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

So FeeTofKlay what you are saying is you think the creationist religious apologetics of ID is more polite than the scientific Theory of Evolution?

Then WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL THE Judge?

Heck it would have been a slam dunk!

Comment #137481

Posted by gwangung on October 5, 2006 11:48 AM (e)

I’m sure I classify as a “fundie” merely because I am a Christian

Um, no.

It’s because you DON’T think. You DON’T read what’s in front of you. And you presume FAR too much that just ain’t so.

That has NOTHING to do with being a Christian–it has to do with not using the brain that God gave you. Most doctrines consider faith a matter of the spirit AND mind–but not fundamentalists.

Comment #137482

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 5, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

Is it your interpretation of his speech that he believes the “religious” views of “secularists” are being promoted in public schools? And do you agree with his opinion?”

Actually, I do think that “religious views” (that is, views about religion) of secularists could be promoted in public schools. For instance, Dawkins’ religious views could be required reading.

OK, but are they? If you have evidence of religious views of secularists are being propagandized in the schools, present it so that we can deal with it. Science doesn’t count as such evidence, however.

Os mentioned that he does view secularism as a form of religious thought.

So wrong. Secularism is generally meant as simply non-religious, generally not even necessarily anti-religious. We teach secular science in schools in order not to be teaching atheism or religion. It would be well if this arrangement were not hijacked by either side, but merely stuck to the science.

And, he seemed to view two extremes in America as I mentioned in my blog. His concern is that both sides seems to be fighting for what they fear the most from the opposition. Control.

Yes, that may be true. The schools are no place for that fight, and children are not pawns to be taught the ways of fighting for religion.

I do not believe that secularists are purposely trying to promote their views in the public schools.

And evidently they in fact are not promoting their views in the public schools, or you presumably would have given us evidence to that effect.

My fear is that both fundamentalists and secularists are non-wittingly causing the nation a lot of turmoil because of their fear of each other. It seems to me we should be embracing our differences and learning ways in which to compromise on various issues.

Yes, it would be well if the time-honored compromise would be observed. Religion in the churches, biology, chemistry, and physics (not a comprehensive list) in the science classes.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137484

Posted by Sounder on October 5, 2006 12:09 PM (e)

If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.

Should we or should we not allow creationism to be taught in public schools? Rather than lounge up there on your high horse babbling your empty feel-good scoldings, how about you get off it and propose a substantive solution?

In others words, give us a reason to respect your position on scientific matters as well as religious or non-religious ideals.

How about not caring what we think of your religion or anyone else’s and just let teachers and scientists do their job?

Comment #137485

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 5, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

Regarding this statement:
“And don’t pretend that “secularists” and fundies are equally at fault for the “turmoil” we’re seeing now. The turmoil is entirely the fault of religious bigots trying to demonize, marginalize, and suppress EVERYONE not like themselves, in violation of our country’s most basic values.”

I’m just curious whether any of you think you are going to win this battle you’ve set up for yourselves by raging against “fundies” at each and every opportunity given you.

Here’s a thought for someone who wishes to claim the mantle of unbiased adviser: Don’t assume that we all say the same things. There are people on this forum who do complain about religion at most any turn, and there are many who do not. The ones who you encounter are typically the former, while the latter try not to inflame the religion wars (or get stuck in the same useless diatribes) and usually stay out. I’d be staying out even now if there were much going on here at PT.

Anyway, I myself rather think that elitism and classism, which often are manifested in the religion wars on the non-religious/liberal religion side, are indeed part of the problem in the animosities between sides. However, this does not change the fact that in the battle over the schools, the “secularists” are not trying to force secularism and/or atheism on anybody, while many religionists are trying to change the rules of science so that their religion can be taught in the science classes.

I’m sure I classify as a “fundie” merely because I am a Christian, but I sometimes disagree with the way the “religious right” conduct themselves.

How about their desire to teach religious ideas in science classes?

If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.

No, there are no simple answers in fighting against theocratic tendencies. Often it works to show less respect to those who deserve less respect. Other times, for instance with you thus far (IMO), respectful discourse is the best.

In fact, it will probably do your case considerable damage in the end because the public will no doubt view your rants as a form of intolerance.

Just an thought.

We have these fights all of the time. The upshot is that those who wish to rage against religion cannot and should not be stopped. It is a form of expression, one that is often used by those who feel the tyranny of the majority.

My suspicions are that tirades against religion ought not to dominate the debates, however, and they do not. But we find most IDists and most creationists focusing in on the militant atheists, because they already have the wrong belief that the fight for proper science teaching is waged as a battle against religion.

That is to say, most of us here know very well that the issue is not religion/non-religion. The asymmetry in these conversations is that IDists/creos are 90%+ of the time mischaracterizing our desires for good science to prevail as attacks on religion. The dishonesty of it all leads to our animosity against UD, the DI, and other purveyors of pseudoscience, as we’re simply telling the truth (most of us, at least), while we’re constantly facing lies.

Fix that, and there will be much more comity between the two sides.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137486

Posted by Darth Robo on October 5, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

Forthekids said:

“I’m sure I classify as a “fundie” merely because I am a Christian, but I sometimes disagree with the way the “religious right” conduct themselves.”

No. There are plenty of Christians, even scientists who can accept evolution (and all the rest of modern science). You would qualify as a fundie because you reject scientific consensus of modern science theories.

You also have stated you would support the teaching of alternatives which we have already shown you to be scientifically wrong and have their roots in creationism.

“If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.”

Perhaps you’re right. But there is the possiblity that just by simply showing them to be wrong is enough to upset them and cry out ‘persecution!’.

“In others words, give us a reason to respect your position on scientific matters as well as religious or non-religious ideals.”

Surely, as scientists, are they not the ones who are qualified to make judgements on scientific manners? The same way a car mechanic should be qualified to fix cars and a cook would be qualified to be a chef?

Comment #137487

Posted by Rodney on October 5, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

FTK wrote:
“In others words, give us a reason to respect your position on scientific matters as well as religious or non-religious ideals.”

A reason? Don’t you want to know about reality? Science doesn’t operate on opinions, creationism does.

And, congratz Nick!

- Rodney

Comment #137490

Posted by Raging Bee on October 5, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.

Given that the “Christian” fundies routinely portray my religion as “Devil-worship,” and some of them are now blaming people like myself for 9/11, that’s not exactly a high standard of conduct you’re suggesting. I can – literally – do better than that in my sleep.

In fact, it will probably do your case considerable damage in the end because the public will no doubt view your rants as a form of intolerance.

Not if the “rants” are based on documented statements from the fundies themselves.

Comment #137494

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 5, 2006 1:26 PM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

I’m just curious whether any of you think you are going to win this battle you’ve set up for yourselves by raging against “fundies” at each and every opportunity given you.

Define “win”. Eradicate fundamentalism? Nope. It’s a free society and we (at least, most of us) aren’t even aiming for it. We are aiming to make sure that science isn’t corrupted by ideologs.

We would like to make the public more aware of science. We would like it if the public adopted some standards of critical thinking and learned to recognize the difference between a scientific and unscientific claims.

But that’s about it, really.

Forthekids wrote:

I’m sure I classify as a “fundie” merely because I am a Christian,

I’m Christian and I’ve been accused of being fundamentalist exactly twice in all my time on the Internet (seven years). Once by mistaken identity, once by one of those fundamentalist atheists that the fundamentalist Christians pretend exist under every rock. (I can only really claim to have met three or four, even counting offline life.)

Being a fundamentalist isn’t about being Christian or not. It’s about having no room in your mind for opposing views. It’s about being RIGHT, regardless of fact. It’s about not just believing your religion is the best one (after all, if you didn’t believe this, you’d convert to another!), but insisting that everyone else must believe yours is best as well, or else.

The vast majority of the world’s Christians are not fundamentalists. I’m not. Kenneth Miller isn’t. I’m rather hoping you won’t be.

Forthekids wrote:

but I sometimes disagree with the way the “religious right” conduct themselves.

That’s not saying much. My father is barely left of Limbaugh and even he disagrees with the religious wrong on occasion.

Forthekids wrote:

If you want to influence people into thinking that your views are correct, it seems to me that you should be rising above these “fundies” by showing more respect for others than they show toward you.

In my time debating creationists, I’ve:

1. Been accused of being a child molester because I objected to killing homosexuals.
2. Had posts in my name forged and sent expressing my support for racist hate-groups.
3. Had creationists attempt to contact and harass my family.
4. Had creationists make jokes about my grandfather’s death while I attended his funeral.
5. Had me email accounts bombed.

And that’s just the peaks of generally offensive behavior. I’ve been asking the same set of questions since 1985 and to date not a single creationist has been able to answer them nor explain how they can claim creationism best matches the evidence when they cannot.

Do you know what the most common answer to my queries about the sorting of fossil plants is? Well, the most common answer is {insert sound of one hand clapping}. (This also includes, “I’ll get back to you on that…” followed by {insert sound of one hand clapping}.) The next most common answer is “some species can outrun rising floodwaters better than others”. Yes, before the flood, plants were capable of running for higher ground, or, rather, the creationist can’t be bothered to think about his answer, he just plugs “fossil sorting” into the search engine at his favorite creationist website and regurgitates the answer, failing to notice it makes not an ounce of sense. The third most common answer is variations on “BURN IN HELL”.

Tell me, FTK, exactly how much of my respect am I supposed to spend on these people? We’re talking about a group of people whose most common complaint is that they are being oppressed because they aren’t allowed to enforce their beliefs on others, people who want to corrupt and destroy one of the foundation freedoms of our society.

I have no respect for them and any respect I displayed would be purest hypocrisy. Jesus condemned hypocrisy and I’m not too fond of it either.

Forthekids wrote:

In others words, give us a reason to respect your position on scientific matters as well as religious or non-religious ideals.

The reasons you should respect the scientific conclusions are numerous. It’s an open process. It’s a flexible one, ready for new ideas. It’s grounded in evidence and experiment. It’s been incredibly successful and your life has benefited greatly from those successes. Simply put, the fact that the process works should be obvious to anyone.

The evidence for evolution is strong and nigh undeniable (at least, without some substantial new evidence). You can scratch the surface of this here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you don’t find these reasons worthy of your respect for evolution, then I ask you in all seriousness, what kind of evidence do you want?

(I get such interesting answers to this question!)

Forthekids wrote:

If you feel there is no chance of convincing them and all that is left is to rage against the machine, I don’t think your rages are going to be of benefit in this debate.

I, personally, don’t rage at them. I ask them questions, over and over again. I shred their anti-evolution arguments and then demand they support their side (which they almost never even try to do if you don’t force their hand).

As for convincing them, well:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/mes…

Forthekids wrote:

In fact, it will probably do your case considerable damage in the end because the public will no doubt view your rants as a form of intolerance.
Just an thought.

Tolerating the intolerant only leads to institutionalized intolerance.

Glen Davidson wrote:

However, this does not change the fact that in the battle over the schools, the “secularists” are not trying to force secularism and/or atheism on anybody, while many religionists are trying to change the rules of science so that their religion can be taught in the science classes.

And, notably, nobody else’s. This is something distinctly missing in all of the “equal time” arguments: Actual equality. Fundamentalists don’t want equal time. They don’t ask for equal time for everyone’s creationism. Nope, you won’t see them trying to suggest textbooks advocating Amerind or Hindu creationism. They want equal time for THEM and everyone else can just get lost.

Even this pretense at “equal time” only came about because all of their efforts to outlaw science have failed. Before that, they were demanding quite unequal time.

Comment #137505

Posted by Peter on October 5, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Mr. Suttkus,
Right on.
Your post reminds me of a guy I used to debate while I was an undergrad at Penn State. He is quite the leader among the PA creationist. He is a noted flood/catastrophism proponent who peddled much nonsense about dinosaur physiology and evidence for human’s walking with dragons and such. It was astounding that a man with a doctorate in Engineering from Cal Tech (!!!) could believe the most obvious baloney.
I faced him with questions all the time to which he could not accurately respond or only by citing ideas so thoroughly debunked (vapor canopy anyone?) that it was kind of hurt. I remember asking him how you could have two of every terran dinosaur on the ark. Seriously, think about the mass of even a pair of juveniles of ten species of the largest sauropods. Brachiasaurus, ultrasaurus, apatasaurus, etc. No way.
The patent and obvious irrationality of the true fundamentalist is appalling.

Comment #137507

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 5, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Given that the “Christian” fundies routinely portray my religion as “Devil-worship,” and some of them are now blaming people like myself for 9/11, that’s not exactly a high standard of conduct you’re suggesting. I can – literally – do better than that in my sleep.

don’t forget the recent school shootings; they blame evolution being taught in schools for that too.

Comment #137509

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 5, 2006 7:46 PM (e)

Peter wrote:

Mr. Suttkus,
Right on.
Your post reminds me of a guy I used to debate while I was an undergrad at Penn State. He is quite the leader among the PA creationist.

It started off really nice and complimentary, then you’re comparing me to a creationist! And a really dumb one! WAAAAAAAA!

Comment #137511

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 5, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

I’m just curious whether any of you think you are going to win this battle

Um, we’ve already won this battle. In a place called Dover, Pennsylvania.

It was in all the enwspapers.

Comment #137512

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 5, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

Hey FTK, you seem to have neglected to answer my simple question, for some odd reason. So I’ll ask again. And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.

*ahem*

You made the claim that ID is not creationism, and has nothing whatever to do with creationism.

The Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document, though, lists, as one of its goals,

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

If, as you assert, ID is not creationism and has utterly completely totally no interest in creationism whatsoever, then, uh, would you mind explaining to me, please (1) what this “traditional doctrine of creation” is that ID wants to defend, and (2) why it wants to defend it …. ?

Any time you’re ready to answer that simple question, you just let me know, OK?

Silence on your part, of course, would also be quite an eloquent answer ….

Comment #137514

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 5, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

Stevaroni:

I’ll try to be more e-civil in the future.

Ack! I must not have expressed myself very well (the very first time that that’s happened, I’m sure!).

What I was trying to say was that, if we had e-props here, then that post of yours certainly deserved a few.

And that, despite, or alongside of, its devastating accuracy, it still managed to be entirely civil, in my view.

But I know what you mean about the best intentions of clinging to civility eventually evaporating in the face of unrelenting moronity.

Comment #137517

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 5, 2006 9:10 PM (e)

And let me also extend my plaudits (for whatever they’re worth–hey, I know, I’ll buy you one of Lenny’s Pizza Guy’s virtual pizzas!) for the second time today, to MS II.

The first shout-out was for a humorous post on one of the other threads.

This one’s for the more serious post # 137494 above–well said indeed!

Comment #137546

Posted by Gary Hurd on October 6, 2006 12:33 AM (e)

That must be tremendous fun to be acknowledged for your hard work and multiple contributions. Your effort and effect in the Dover trial alone merited recognition. Congratulations Nick!

Comment #137593

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 6, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Can it be virtual meat lovers pizza (no pepperoni, add onions)? Because virtual pizza is the only kind I’ll be able to eat anymore after my doctor gives me my blood test results today…

Comment #137594

Posted by Forthekids on October 6, 2006 8:42 AM (e)

Hi Lenny,

No, at this time, I won’t be attempting to carry on any type of serious conversation with you. Your comments in this thread send up quite a few red flags as to the type of conversationalist that you are.

I will say that I plan on tackling quite a few of your “questions” in various ways on upcoming blog entries at http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/.

Honestly, some of your comments actually help support my side of this debate. It shows the irrational attitudes and extreme bias of some of the Darwinists in this debate. But, I realize you can’t see that, so carry on.

Comment #137599

Posted by Darth Robo on October 6, 2006 8:56 AM (e)

“Honestly, some of your comments actually help support my side of this debate. It shows the irrational attitudes and extreme bias of some of the Darwinists in this debate. But, I realize you can’t see that, so carry on.”

People may be biased, but the scientific evidence ain’t. Good luck.

Comment #137600

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 6, 2006 9:02 AM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

Hi Lenny,

No, at this time, I won’t be attempting to carry on any type of serious conversation with you. Your comments in this thread send up quite a few red flags as to the type of conversationalist that you are.

You know what I do with people like that? I answer their questions as politely as possible, then shred them for being impolite, then ask them questions, which they never answer, so the entire process works out well!

(If anyone finds this incongruous with my earlier post about lacking respect, let me say I draw a distinction between showing respect for creationists (I have none and will not fake it) and being rude.)

Insults do not remove the value of the question. They do not justify fleeing from legitimately presented questions.

I, for one, would like to see your answers to Lenny’s questions.

Over on DebunkCreation, Lenny and I have developed a reputation for playing Good Cop/Bad Cop. Guess which is which! It’s fun. Lenny and I respond to a post in our inimitable styles, then we watch to see who the creationists respond to.

Oddly, there’s not a lot of diversity in creationist behavior. They respond to Lenny. Well, they complain about Lenny insulting them. They gripe up and down, left and right, eight ways to Sunday (what does that even mean? All I know is my grandmother used to say it.) Lenny is mean! Lenny is uncivilized! Lenny is typical of “Darwinists”! Lenny is rude because he has no evidence! Oh, woe is creationism! They ask a few questions and ALL THEY GET IS INSULTS!

And all the time they’re whining that all they got is insults, I sit back and continually remind them and everyone that they got reasoned, detailed, insult free answers that they have failed to respond to while lying about having only gotten insults. I then remind them about all the problems with their own claims they haven’t dealt with.

Naturally, they ignore this to focus still more on Lenny.

I can’t claim I’ve gotten the attention of many creationists this way, but it really highlights for the undecided just how empty the creationist arguments are.

So, please, don’t ignore Lenny. Be better than Lenny. CHALLENGE Lenny.

And while you’re at it, explain fossil sorting to me because I still don’t see how creationists explain mangroves getting to the top of the fossil record.

Forthekids wrote:

I will say that I plan on tackling quite a few of your “questions” in various ways on upcoming blog entries at http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/.

No good for me. I’m reading too many pages daily online as it is, I’m not adding anymore.

Forthekids wrote:

Honestly, some of your comments actually help support my side of this debate. It shows the irrational attitudes and extreme bias of some of the Darwinists in this debate. But, I realize you can’t see that, so carry on.

All sides have extremists. The existence of those extremists should help support anything at all. “X is wrong because some supports of X are biased” is just plain silly as an argument.

The only thing to support your argument would be evidence and explanations of evidence. Do you have either?

P.S., I’m still waiting to meet a creationist who isn’t biased. Is it likely to happen soon?

Comment #137608

Posted by Raging Bee on October 6, 2006 9:30 AM (e)

Brave FTK ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When knowledge reared its fright’ning head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Brave, brave, brave, brave FTK…

And while I’m stating the obvious in such a totally unoriginal way, I might also add that FTK only pretended to respond to Lenny, while ignoring all of the perfectly legitimate questions asked of him by MANY respondents. This is a standard response of religious bigots and demagogues: spew out truckloads of falsehoods and insults until someone gets impatient, then say “Whoops, you just said a nasty word! This proves you’re evil and uncivil and you’re persecuting me, an innocent little lamb of God, threfore I don’t have to defend anything I’ve said ‘cause you’re all gonna persecute me anyway.”

Comment #137611

Posted by Forthekids on October 6, 2006 9:38 AM (e)

“Naturally, they ignore this to focus still more on Lenny.”

I’m thinking that is probably part of Lenny’s plan. If he actually focused entirely on scientific content, he’d get clobbered. So, he doesn’t. He berates and belittles.

Your advice to simply answer the questions is the obvious answer, but I realize that in this particular venue, that is a waste of my time.

If you were familiar with me, you’d realize that I never back away from confrontation on these issues. I’ve spent two years in the KCFS forum and answered virtually everything thrown my way. Many times having 30 posters targeted at me at a time.

I’ll cover many of the issues in my blog on my time rather than being pushed by evolutionists to answer questions which they already know we have solid answers for.

As much as you’d like to believe that ID is dead, it’s quite obvious that it’s stronger than ever.

Good luck to all of you.

Comment #137615

Posted by Darth Robo on October 6, 2006 10:00 AM (e)

“I’m thinking that is probably part of Lenny’s plan. If he actually focused entirely on scientific content, he’d get clobbered. So, he doesn’t. He berates and belittles.”

On the contrary, I’ve seen Lenny take down many a creationist and backing up his claims. He not only takes them down, he SLAUGHTERS them. Fair enough, he’ll throw in some jokes and/or insults for his own personal amusement (and mine). But never underestimate Lenny’s knowledge just because of his attitude.

“Your advice to simply answer the questions is the obvious answer, but I realize that in this particular venue, that is a waste of my time.”

Not at all. Unless you refuse to listen to what people say here, in which case it is a waste of your time. Just above, Raging Bee has already made a perfect analogy of your persecution conplex.

“If you were familiar with me, you’d realize that I never back away from confrontation on these issues. I’ve spent two years in the KCFS forum and answered virtually everything thrown my way. Many times having 30 posters targeted at me at a time.

I’ll cover many of the issues in my blog on my time rather than being pushed by evolutionists to answer questions which they already know we have solid answers for.”

Your “solid evidence” is not backed up by the scientific community (or evidence for that matter) at large.

“As much as you’d like to believe that ID is dead, it’s quite obvious that it’s stronger than ever.”

That’s hilarious, considering the hammering it has suffered this past year. We await their “scientific research” with bated (but not held) breath.

Good luck to you too. See? Some of us are nice. :-)

Comment #137616

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 6, 2006 10:02 AM (e)

Ah, these “solid answers” that never seem to actually appear anywhere. Hmm, am I supposed to take their existence on faith?

I guess there isn’t a single creationist on the planet who actually wants to convince me they have a case. How very strange.

Thanks for ignoring my entire point, FTK. In doing so, you made it.

Comment #137627

Posted by Moses on October 6, 2006 10:28 AM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

The court’s response - “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” - is uncivil, and illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse.

You live in a bubble. First, the courts have be contemptuous of fools since their establishment. Jones was was very kind considering the garbage your kind drug out.

Second, the Courts aren’t there to salve your egos after you lie and get caught lying. The Courts depend on the truth of the participants to make their decisions. And when one side gets caught in blatant lying, the Courts are there to tell it like it is for those who will read and learn.

The fact is, you got your ass kicked and righteous so. You lied from the beginning and found some fools to take you up on your lies, severely damaging a school district. And, to make it worse, I have yet to hear of the people on YOUR SIDE make amends and cover the legal fees. You should be out there raising funds and giving them to the people of Dover, not cruising the Internet to lose fights you’re not capable of winning.

Comment #137630

Posted by Anton Mates on October 6, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

Forthekids wrote:

“Naturally, they ignore this to focus still more on Lenny.”

I’m thinking that is probably part of Lenny’s plan. If he actually focused entirely on scientific content, he’d get clobbered. So, he doesn’t. He berates and belittles.

Hey, go ahead and clobber him. Sciencefy the heck out of him. Demolish him with information. We’ll all be very impressed.

Your advice to simply answer the questions is the obvious answer, but I realize that in this particular venue, that is a waste of my time.

Flashback to “Airplane!”:
“Should we demonstrate the scientific validity of our claims and their lack of religious underpinning by answering a few straightforward questions?”

“No…that’s just what they’re expecting us to do.”

Comment #137631

Posted by Doc Bill on October 6, 2006 10:35 AM (e)

And so, boys and girls, comes to a close another episode of Cartoon Creationists staring our clueless but faithful little moron, Fool the Kid.

Join us next week for episode 22: Who’s There?

Can Fool the Kid avoid being eaten by the land mosasaur? Let’s have a peek!

*ding dong*

“Who’s there?”

“Lenny’s pizza boy.”

“I didn’t order any pizza! You’re a land mosasaur!”

*ding dong*

“Who’s there?”

“Flowers. Evolved from leaves.”

“You can’t fool me! Flowers came from the Garden of Eden! You’re a land mosasaur!”

*ding dong*

“Who’s there?”

“Bill Dembski. My car broke down and I’m all wet.”

“Ohhhhh, Billy…..”

(cue dramatic music) (voiceover: No, Fool, don’t open the door. Run, Fool, run!)

Comment #137635

Posted by Corkscrew on October 6, 2006 10:43 AM (e)

Your advice to simply answer the questions is the obvious answer, but I realize that in this particular venue, that is a waste of my time.

Do you have any reason for thinking that? I’m trying, but I can’t find any comment where you’ve put this to the test by actually answering a question.

Comment #137637

Posted by Raging Bee on October 6, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

If you were familiar with me, you’d realize that I never back away from confrontation on these issues.

All you’ve done here is back away – not just here, but in several previous threads on PT. Are you trying to imply that you’re showing a different face here from what you show to others? Who, exactly, are you trying to deceive, and why?

Isn’t it written somewhere “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?”

PS: We’re not labelling you a “fundie” because you’re a Christian (your behavior here is decidedly un-Christian, but that’s another matter); we’re labelling you a “fundie” because you’re repeating the fundies’ rhetoric, talking-points and lies word for word, without even seeming to comprehend or care what you paste from creationist sites.

Comment #137640

Posted by Sounder on October 6, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Aww, another creationist leaves with a dissonance-salving parting shot. Congradulations on your brilliant rhetorical move of calling us all too biased for discussion! Maybe next time you can actually answer a god-damned question when it’s posed to you: maybe, just maybe, it could prove to be the missing element in our one-sided attempts at dialogue.

Comment #137657

Posted by Peter on October 6, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

Mr. Suttkus,
I meant that your role and my role have been similar and the tactics are the same. Ask ask ask!!! No way are you like that Creationist.
Good work.

Comment #137658

Posted by Raging Bee on October 6, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

Forthekids: Here’s something I’m stealing from wamba on another PT thread:

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker, Laurie Goodstein, NYTimes, December 4, 2005:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.

Any comment from the cdesign proponentsists on this?

Comment #137670

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on October 6, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

Michael Suttkus II

Can it be virtual meat lovers pizza (no pepperoni, add onions)? Because virtual pizza is the only kind I’ll be able to eat anymore after my doctor gives me my blood test results today…

Well, I’m no particular fan of the pinheaded Steviepinhead, but–so long as his credit card company doesn’t reject him–his money’s as good as the next guy’s.

Besides which, I gotta agree with the pinhead on this one–Michael’s been rockin’ wailin’ on this thread (well, and kudos to Nick, too, obviously!).

So, one large-a pan-baked Panda pizza a-coming right-a up for Mr. Suttkus, lotsa onions, no pepperoni! Piping hot, always on time!*

——-
*Of course, prompt delivery of virtual pizzas is a little bit easier than bikin’ across town to Lenny’s shack.

Degas willing…

Comment #137679

Posted by Raging Bee on October 6, 2006 3:27 PM (e)

PS: I posted the same excerpt from the same article about the lack of ID research proposals on FTK’s blog. Comments there are subject to “moderation.” So far, my post has not appeared.

Comment #137680

Posted by Coin on October 6, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

Aww, another creationist leaves with a dissonance-salving parting shot. Congradulations on your brilliant rhetorical move of calling us all too biased for discussion! Maybe next time you can actually answer a god-damned question when it’s posed to you: maybe, just maybe, it could prove to be the missing element in our one-sided attempts at dialogue.

And unless I missed something vital, despite having made many posts about how Intelligent Design is science not religion, no one should try to speculate on the Intelligent Design movement’s motives etc etc and we’re all terrible unserious people for being intolerant of “fundies”… after all this, FTK is running away without having said anything about the actual science of ID.

If there is some motive or substance to Intelligent Design beyond the simple religious promotion Judge Jones saw in it, then FTK has by her appearance on this blog not done anything to give us the slightest hint what that other motive or substance might be.

Comment #137706

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

No, at this time, I won’t be attempting to carry on any type of serious conversation with you.

I don’t blame you.

But then, I will just contin ue to ask you questions, again and again and again. After all, my questions make their point all by themselves, and your silence just emphasizes that point.

I don’t need your cooperation. (shrug)

Now then, if, as you say, ID isn’t creationism, then, um, why does DI list defending “traditional doctrine of creation” as one of its “governing goals”?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Comment #137719

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 6, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

As much as you’d like to believe that ID is dead, it’s quite obvious that it’s stronger than ever.

Just ask the folks over at Uncommon descent.

Whenever it’s back up again.

BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!